“The Free Speech Union says our government should be
grateful to the Union, and the thousands of New Zealanders
who helped persuade our politicians not to pass ‘hate
speech’ law, and who stood up for our long proud tradition
of not jumping to ban unwelcome arguments and
protests.
“Last week’s UK High Court ruling against
the British government’s enforcement of its ban on the
activist group Palestine Action again shows the folly of
trying to suppress hostile and offensive agitation that does
not reach the threshold of incitement to violence,” says
Stephen Franks, Chair of the Free Speech
Union.
“This is not necessarily about whether a
group should be designated as a terrorist entity, but about
what happens when “support” for such a group is defined so
broadly that it criminalises people peacefully endorsing its
cause.
“Under the UK ban, nearly 3,000 people were
arrested, not for acts of violence or material assistance,
but for holding signs, wearing T-shirts, and posting online.
Expressing support for a proscribed organisation carried up
to 14 years in prison. The High Court found this caused a
“very significant interference” with freedom of expression
and association.
“The question of whether Palestine
Action should or shouldn’t have been proscribed is for the
UK,” says Franks, “though we think it is generally dumb to
ban any kinds of argument without knowing exactly how you
will enforce it without trashing free speech
principles.”.
“What concerns us is how absurdly broad
the definition of ‘support’ became. Holding a placard.
Wearing a shirt. That’s not terrorism. That’s political
expression.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“This matters for New Zealand because
the Ministry of Justice is currently developing amendments
to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. The proposals under
consideration include new offences for “expressions of
support” for designated entities, criminalising the display
of insignia, and broadening the definition of “material
support.”
“These are the same vague, sweeping terms
that just blew up in the UK’s face,” says Franks. “Terms
like ‘support’, ‘praise’, ‘endorsing’, and ‘promoting’ might
sound nice to zealots who expect they will only be used
against their enemies. And attractive to politicians who
don’t face hard media questions if they claim to be well
intentioned and to oppose horrible people. “In practice,
such words drag the Police into looking politically
partisan. Even if we could be confident that they are
resolutely neutral on political issues in the first
place.
“Criminalising journalism, academic research,
satire, and peaceful protest just guarantees that extremists
of all stripes will find it much more vital that they and
their cronies can wield the levers of power, and get their
opponents locked up.”
“The FSU met with the Ministry
of Justice in September 2025 and raised these concerns
directly. We don’t apologise for an “I told you so”.
The Coalition should have dumped the New Zealand project
last year, or at least given fresh instructions that freedom
of speech was non-negotiable.
“The UK experience
shows in real time what recklessly pious drafting looks like
when it steers enforcement – thousands of arrests for
peaceful expression, followed by a High Court ruling that it
was unlawful.
“New Zealand defeated dangerous hate
speech laws because they would have criminalised speech, not
conduct,” says Franks. “We cannot allow terrorism
legislation to achieve the same result through the back
door, by defining ‘support’ so broadly that it captures
everything from a protest sign to an opinion piece. Any
reform that comes out of the current project needs an
absolute over-ride that protects freedom of peaceful
speech.”
